Aussie soldiers are the best

[tab]

  Turbo6man said:

I'd just like to see this whole thread deleted in it's entirity as it is serving no useful purpose and I can't see it leading to any useful discussion whatsoever.

Mods, please do us a favour and get rid of this un-patriotic tripe. Sarcasm has its place, but this is one topic that should remain immune.

Trent.

[stardust]

Im sure I can remember about a aussie soldier that was on exchange with the US getting out of a tank after they took Bagdad.

The blokes that are over there are risking their lives for our safety and freedom.

Anyone anywhere that says australian troops are not doing their job can get rooted.

Ken

[TurboDewd]

  Turbo6man said:

If you can't put together a more lucid post you better just shut the fuch up' cos this is just inflammatory in the extreme.

My point is that our PM is a great politician, he gets mileage about committing us to the 'coalition of the willing' without putting too much risk on our Aussie soldiers lives (touch wood). This helped score us a US free trade agreement.

Our Canadian cousins were in Afghanistan, so we were.

Our Canadian cousins didnt go to Iraq but we did. Why? Because this war is about US strategic interests. Saddam was supported by the US for a long long time, but when he went against the US he became a thorn in their side so they removed him.

My 2 cents is over.

[Velvet Glove]

I think the obvious is being missed. The reason we have 0 fatalities is because 0 of our guys have been killed, not because we're not 'important' .

The second reason is that our guys are very highly trained (much more so than some of the larger armies involved in the coalition), particularly those with specialist involvement.

Its a bit of a 'no brainer' really, and some that I would have thought was dead set obvious in the first place. We don't send the SAS places to guard embassies or have picnics. Commonly their missions are either (but not confined to) smaller patrols well in advance of larger units, or reconnaiscance missions close to, or behind, opposing combatants lines. They are very, very good at what they do and aren't in the business of looking at getting themselves hurt.

Is it just me, or wasn't that glaringly obvious ?

[Cro]

I was talking to my mate who is a soldier and has work mates in Iraq..

He says that most soldiers in their free time go out sight seeing, shopping, whatever away from their barracks.

The Australians are forbidden to do such things, they are apparently confined to the heavily protected barracks unless doing missions which is why they don't get killed whilst trying on a new bra being unprepared like the americans...

I don't know if it's true or not, I'm just going of what he said.

All in all, the less fatalities overall (except the muslim extremists) the better.

[TurboDewd]

  Cro said:

All in all, the less fatalities overall (except the muslim extremists) the better.

Here, here!

Either way, the stats are interesting. I never knew the Italians and Polish and some of those other nations were even in there, let alone seeing a lot of frontline action.

[tongueboy]

be careful TurboDewd or you will get your head bitten off for daring to have an opinion or a thought and posting it!

[cvanxr]

  TurboDewd said:

  Cro said:

All in all, the less fatalities overall (except the muslim extremists) the better.

Here, here!

Either way, the stats are interesting. I never knew the Italians and Polish and some of those other nations were even in there, let alone seeing a lot of frontline action.

I think as with most guerilla actions/conflicts you will find that there is no front line.

It is great to see that at this stage our forces remain fatality free and pray that it remains so.

As far as being there and reasoning behind it all goes I reserve my opinion.

[OwnaXR6T]

  TurboDewd said:

Hi guys,

Im puzzled, Ive just found out that according to this WEBSITE that we dont rank very highly at all in the liberation of Iraq.

Our soldiers are as brave and skilled as the Yanks or POMs...what are we doing over there, planting roses? I hope the other forces there dont accuse us of being wimps or passengers. Isn't our PM confident in our troops' ability to fight insurgents? Here's the current military fatality stats for coalition forces in Iraq

US: 1100

UK: 68

Italian: 19

Polish: 13

Spanish: 11

Ukrainian: 9

Bulgarian: 6

Slovaks: 3

Netherlands 2

Thai: 2

Danish: 1

Estonian: 1

Salvadoran: 1

Latvian: 1

Hungarian: 1

Australia? We dont get a mention. Odd, I could have sworn we were the 3rd most important partner.

Well im sorry they aren't bombing civilians like the yanks.

What are they doing there in the first place is the question id like to ask.....

[sixfan]

  Velvet Glove said:

I think the obvious is being missed. The reason we have 0 fatalities is because 0 of our guys have been killed, not because we're not 'important' .

The second reason is that our guys are very highly trained (much more so than some of the larger armies involved in the coalition), particularly those with specialist involvement.

Its a bit of a 'no brainer' really, and some that I would have thought was dead set obvious in the first place. We don't send the SAS places to guard embassies or have picnics. Commonly their missions are either (but not confined to) smaller patrols well in advance of larger units, or reconnaiscance missions close to, or behind, opposing combatants lines. They are very, very good at what they do and aren't in the business of looking at getting themselves hurt.

Is it just me, or wasn't that glaringly obvious ?

I thought it was obvious

anyways, cant see this thread lasting long if the "combatants" resort to personal insults.